The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

"Health Officials" bust vendors, promoters at NJ Vape Expo

Discussion in 'Media and General News' started by Mazinny, Jul 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. stevegmu

    stevegmu Moved On ECF Veteran


    No idea. But what they did would have gotten them a permit for New York, not New Jersey. Apparently there are no permits for such events in New Jersey. They had incompetent legal advice, a building owner who just wanted the money and event planners way over their heads...
     
  2. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    This is Something that I would Agree with.

    Be it if they were trying to put on a Vape Expo. Or trying to show that there was some way that Organized Vaping could be done Indoors in NJ.

    Anyway you Slice it, seems like it was Kinda a Train Wreck.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mazinny

    Mazinny Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 25, 2013
    NY
  4. nic_fix

    nic_fix Account closed on request ECF Veteran

    Oct 16, 2013
    USA
    okay, assuming it is true that their is indeed a movement towards the hatred of vapors.... I will change my stance. than, that is in fact oppression. I was not aware of this. if so, I would not be surprised if it is spearheaded by big tobacco. this likens to certain rock groups that have a large following but are on the fringe of things. other people have been known to accost these individuals often facing them with acts of violence. that is much more wrong on their part than us arguing the right to vape indoors. your points are well taken by myself as of now. I was in the dark as to this practice for some reason. occupying wall street because a banker bought a million dollar toilet is fruitless. he harmed no one. yes, his underlings make minimum wage. go better oneself than. being under attack in any form or matter is unjust and uncalled for. if in fact this holds true I do a 360 on my stance regarding our subject. I am sorry I did not know this. I thought this just a bunch of people whining because they were not awarded a convenience. which is what vaping indoors mostly is. I see the point of not giving up an inch to protect the bigger picture. I was not aware of this anti vaping movement. learn something everyday. if so, in layman's terms that really just sucks. as of now I understand this differently. if the entire industry has come under fire due to hatred that is a completely different story. perhapos likened to many a persons disgust of motorcycle clubs. notice I did not say gangs. if in fact this is true I am sorry I went on for so long stating that it simply has the best interest of others in mind. perhaps others do not have our best interest in mind. any way you engage in such practice be it the vapers or anti vapers this behavior is outright wrong and immoral. again, if this holds true. please point me to somewhere that outlines hatred of vapers. I can assure you unfortunately if someone assaulted a vaper solely for the act of vaping that is a hate crime and may serve to turn the tables in our favor. I do not suggest anyone goes and takes one for the team however. awaiting confirmation on this I stand corrected.

    one thing and I don't mean what you think. how did they have lawyers on retainer but could not afford a $250 fine? pro bono? most good lawyers make at least $250 an hour. just wondering why they did not figure this out beforehand.
     
  5. crxess

    crxess Grumpy Ole Man Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Sep 20, 2012
    Williamsport Md
    Like for laws to be fair, just and unbiased?

    I thought that was a good thing. :blink:

    I still want to know how one Writes, sponsors and signs a bill into law.
    Isn't that some sort of double jeopardy or something?

    It's like, This is what I AM going to do. Get on board or get gone!
     
  6. nic_fix

    nic_fix Account closed on request ECF Veteran

    Oct 16, 2013
    USA
    any way you cut this matter it is improper to compare it to rosa parks. that was a little bit bigger burden on a group of people. just try to be reasonable about what you say. I may now agree this is unjust under certain circumstances but just not on that scale. how many of us are still complaining we can not smoke in public? I guess we wil leave that to others now. everyone has a cause but this is not segregation or slavery for that matter.
     
  7. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    Using Civil Disobedience to bring attention to an Unjust Law can be a Good Thing. It can Also backfire. And bring More Negative Sentiment towards All of those who were supposed to be Represented by the disobedience.

    If the Organizers indeed wanted to Protest Jersey's indoor vaping law, OK. Get a Building Rented, Tell Everyone that is going to be Involved what you want to do, and do it.

    Don't Involve Businesses who are Spending Thousands of Dollars to set up a booth at a an expo Without their knowledge. Or Unsuspecting Vapers who might have Driven for Hours just to go to a Show.

    Once again, I'm not saying that I am Convinced that this was the Sole Intent of the event Coordinators. But I got the Impression that this was Part of their Reasoning for doing it in an Indoor Venue inside the state of New Jersey.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. stevegmu

    stevegmu Moved On ECF Veteran

    After what vaping has become and what I have seen of this event and others, I agree with these laws. I don't want them vaping at a restaurant I am at, unless in a special enclosed section or even at a mall or the Target. Their goal seems to simply blow clouds...
     
  9. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    I don't think I would go That Far.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. stevegmu

    stevegmu Moved On ECF Veteran

    Whether accurate or not, they are the face of vaping in the US...
     
  11. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    Your concession on the point that the speeding laws are rules that are routinely broken matters much in the dispute that is prominent in this thread. It lends credence to the idea that some rules are meant to be broken.

    FWIW, I took recent road trip in WI and people doing 85 was fairly common place. Vehicle I was in (not driving) maybe got up to 80, four or five times, but pretty much hovered around 76 mph.

    I think it is highly relevant to discussion on this thread that most everyone reading this would acknowledge that people do speed, ergo break the law. But, I wouldn't say that on principle, speeding laws are rules that are meant to be broken. Just that they are widely accepted as rules/laws that are routinely broken, thus if one is claiming in this sort of debate that they will always follow the law, I'm going to wonder if they never drive over the speed limit. If they do, then they are lying about a very critical point to the debate that is in this thread.

    That this needs explaining on a vaping forum, surprises me, greatly. As if you and some others never experienced the 180 degree shift in politics toward smoking and how that is VERY VISIBLY out of whack now.

    The don't vape in public rule is a rule that is meant to be broken. If you are one who will never vape in public place (let's say indoors for argument sake) because you wouldn't smoke there, then IMO, your position is a lost cause. You are in essence sheep. I realize that might not be received well, but I'm not making that assertion lightly. You are, IMO clearly, willing to believe, possibly espouse the "great dangers" of vaping. Plausible you would do this right now to help make points of why not vape in public, but also very possible you would do this when more studies come about, and are funded by what any politically aware vaper could, easily, cite as ANTZ leaning organizations.

    The fact of the matter is that the SHS data, in reality, is questionable. That is neutral observation. Some might say SHS harms have been debunked. I'd lean toward that position, and would very much like to have that debate. I feel that debate is worthy of being revisited as it is blatantly what some vapers are saying is not reason to vape in public (because you can't smoke there, and strong implication is that the reason you can't smoke there is because SHS is known harm.)

    Then there's the other side of the argument that says, "okay, perhaps not harmful, but annoying." Which further exemplifies that such a vaper is a lost cause for the political fight. And seemingly neglects that this event really did address that with signed agreement from all people attending, including the Senator. At this level of political gaming, it would be case of oppression to suggest that a privately held party in otherwise private location is guilty of breaking law that misidentifies devices used, overlooks signed agreements and produces counter propaganda that amounts to "wouldn't you be annoyed if you were in this situation?"

    Thank you for volunteering the points I made earlier that mostly demonstrate you're words represent that you are closer to lost cause than fighting for the vaping enthusiast.

    The real bottom line is that our adversaries seek to shame us for our activity, ideally hope to eliminate it from existence as a recreational choice, and are likely split among themselves about whether it ought to be something that is allowed, but only on a prescription type basis or essentially treated as a drug. Some vapers seem to forgot that battle has already occurred in US courts and our opposition lost. Thus it is a recreational choice product. It may be for you something that saved you from smoking. And you do have every right to spread that via word of mouth, as may be your desire. But our vendors / industry cannot market in that way without it being subject to scrutiny that the product is being treated (by our side) as a wonder drug (you too can quit smoking by using this).

    If it is closer to shameful activity, as recreational choice, then there is way more to be gotten from adversaries than an outright ban. Outright ban sounds ridiculously over the top and bad news for vaping enthusiasts (and would be), but it certainly would not end vaping. It plausibly could make vaping more popular, more lucrative, and more of a political issue than it already is. Yet, no one right now is really talking about outright ban, and so this isn't bottom line in shared reality. In shared reality, shaming and discrediting the recreational aspect(s) of vaping are what is occurring. It won't just be done via high taxation. High taxation seems likely and is part of the game plan. But if you are vaping enthusiasts you are hopefully aware of adversaries game plan (only need to remember what things were like as a smoker to have inkling about what game plan entails). The game plan also entails getting rid of it in all possible public places, indoors, outdoors, in own residence, wherever. That any one reading this thinks if we concede to just a few indoor places, we'll be okay 10 years from now, is as naive as thinking if we concede to price increase just this once, they will never do that again.

    As a rule that is meant to be broken, this means that where there are clear rules, but they are not based on anything legitimate (i.e. actual harm), then those rules will be broken. You can pronounce all you may desire that this will ruin it for everyone or nonsense like that, but you come off as seemingly clueless on what our adversaries are up to now and have been for 50 years. "Seemingly clueless" is the most polite way I can state that.

    Thus far, the vapers who have own rules in place for not vaping indoors (anywhere that smoking doesn't allow it) have presented very feeble arguments. So feeble that I, and others, generally have very little trouble overcoming them. I am, in fact, unable to consider a justification for the no vaping in public rule that would work for most places.

    But that it works for any vaper in this particular case really does have me question where your loyalties lie? Or how equipped you are for the fight that is ahead? What level of integrity you actually have? Or how able you are to use reason in your arguments? Thus far, it shows up as, fairly incapable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    Exhibit A for "feeble argument."

    For if this were true, then all things (or at least a couple other things) that have been massively produced in last say 10 years would also be things you could not do in public, because the long term effects of their use on people, is arguably unknown. For example, mobile devices would be forbidden from public use as their long term effects on the physiology of humans has not been studied over the long term, and until they are, then it would be inconsistent with what is occurring with vaping. I'm sure I could reproduce some inflated concern of a reported study that says mobile devices emit something or other that leads to brain cancer. Thus, if society were consistent with this argument you are putting forth, all mobile device would be disallowed in all public places (indoors and outdoors), and for sure would be an issue for many people when they are visibly in use during any public gathering. That they are, very visibly, not an issue says a) at the very least, we (humankind) are willing to take the risk and b) we are very okay if we show up inconsistent on this position of "long term effects are unknown."

    That is the superficial rationale behind CAA, but not the actual reason. The actual rationale for the Clean Indoor Act is that SHS is a known harm to humans, according to "studies" and that to alleviate those harms from all persons in public, smoking must be prohibited. And then there is the actual goal, which is, in reality to eliminate the activity of smoking from everywhere, if possible, and for sure from all places that are not one's own home, where a smoker can still use, but hopefully realizes how shameful their activity has become that they still haven't gotten the public message that no one / no place wants this anywhere near them.

    I've already brought up mobile devices as physical items that are seemingly allowed in most public places, and that do have relatively known potentials for harm to other people. Risk there may be minuscule, but if make same point with vaping, that doesn't matter as much as "no one wants to be around the potential." So, it would be one very good example of how we are inconsistent with the logic at work. Then, if you google "potentially harmful chemicals in exhaled air," as I just did, you could learn such interesting tidbits as "human breath contains upwards of 250 chemicals." You'd also then have to create new rationale beyond "they don't want any place of business to be polluted by potentially harmful chemicals" and instead probably go with something along lines of "everyone needs to breath." But do they need to breath without a filter over their mouth??? And then let's, for the sake of argument, take breathing off the table and put literally every other activity on par with "does it need to be done in public." Like talking. Or walking. Or whatever. Cause, all this really boils down to, are we going to stay consistent with what we say is really the main issue, or are we just, in all likelihood, attacking something that some people MAY find annoying and allowing that to be enough rationalization for outlawing its use?

    I submit that it is, without a doubt, the latter and that if not scrutinizing the heck out of the rationalizations for no vaping in public, then it is plausible you are sheep toward the political gaming, until you show up otherwise.

    Or until you come to a discussion like this with something better than these type of feeble arguments.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. SomeTexan

    SomeTexan Moved On

    Jun 1, 2015
    Maybe I watch too much Archer, but I think all people should be required to pass gas through a drier sheet if they need to pass gas. Maybe I should run for some kind of office based on that?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    Perhaps it was around 2009 when TPTB decided to attack vaping in way that some things are attacked, and then regulated. Or perhaps it was earlier when these same people in vaping community saw what was done with smoking activity and decided, circa 1990, that if they had to do it over again, they wouldn't just lay down while their activity was being trampled. Or perhaps it was just recently, like past 3 years, when they realized by participating in online discussions, you may have to accept that some in the vaping community will, very willingly, roll over to accepting status quo, and you should too. Unless you want to be a "dangerous rebel."

    Really not sure what is meant here by "preserving vaping." Strikes me as opposite way to go about doing things. Seems like this version is saying that we ought to roll over to national Dems, CDC studies and play nice wherever we can, and that is how we will preserve vaping over the long term.

    The reason to not conform to the warnings is because the law itself is ludicrous to include vaping, and this event's organizers took steps (visible on this thread) to assure themselves, and thus all attendees, that you will not be exposed to anything in the air that you do not intend to be, by knowingly showing up in this place.

    I do grant that some in the vaping community do not respect how this event went down, but I do wonder if those who are espousing such points are truly looking directly at what just occurred? I feel they are not and that I can quote their words where I find this to be the case, as I have already done. I find that some in the vaping community are literally (not figuratively) making the points that ANTZ make about vaping, and then suggesting that this version be the one that we all agree on is the correct way to perceive things going forward.

    So, yeah, I'm going to be a little rebellious towards that. I find that despicable.

    I would suggest we try both. Let's have a whole slew of peaceful ones, and let's be honest with ourselves on how well that is working for us. For up to the NJ event, we pretty much were on that trajectory and thus, if only "peaceful" tactics are way to go, then we really ought to be closer to the things that vaping community says it cares about. We all ought to be very optimistic about FDA deeming and future of vaping activities throughout all 50 states. If not, why not?

    But I would just note to say that this was not peaceful is challenging to go along with. Who was physically harmed in this situation? Like, even a little bit? Perhaps I'm overlooking something and I'm open to being updated, but I would just note that I'm thinking it would be something that was very tangential to what occurred. And in essence would be no different than if say I and 4 other people organized peaceful demonstration for vaping, and 6 other people show up to intentionally get into physical altercations, then one could say that was problem of organizers, or one could say that is tangential to what organizers were clearly up to.
     
  15. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    Okay, so how is vaping issues different than say issue of SSM (which I favor)? SSM clearly offends a segment of the population. So much so that they do not want to be compelled to have to do business where SSM is involved. Yet, we now live in a world where it really doesn't matter if you are that offended by SSM, you must adhere to law of abiding to that part of the market, or a) be fined and/or b) get out of the open market.

    Not being able to vape on private property, during a private party where you/I are asked to sign agreements that you understand what will be present AND THEN be fined for engaging the the activities of that party, which are otherwise legal, IS OPPRESSIVE. Likewise, if I as owner of a building very much want to have vapers vaping in my establishment, knowing full well that I could be alienating all non-vapers, but I am disallowed from doing this because of CIAA, then that too IS OPPRESSIVE.

    Furthermore, breathing without a mouth filter does address the issue you are bringing up. People do need to breath, but I can currently think of no reason why anyone would need to breath in public without a filter. Can you? If you cannot, then would you think a requirement that says you absolutely must wear a mouth filter in all public places is oppressive? Personally, I would. But I think if same people involved in anti-vaping politics were to highlight enough of the "dangers" for "potential harms" from chemicals in exhaled air, that there would be many among us who would be saying, "absolutely it makes sense to make this a requirement." Or things like, "you can't just wait 10 minutes with filter on your mouth before you get outside where you can remove the filter?"
     
  16. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    Umm, because all attendees signed agreements to be exposed to it indoors.

    Like asking, why don't all vapers who think it ought to be done outdoors, like smoking, also do so in their own homes? I mean if you didn't smoke in your own house, why would you allow anyone, including yourself, to vape there?

    See what your Lawyer friends says about that.
     
  17. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin

    I agree with this. While anti-vaping activists do engage in oppression or encourage oppressive tactics, it does not compare to slavery or segregation matters that have historically been fought for, and at times took hundreds of years to make any headway.
     
  18. nic_fix

    nic_fix Account closed on request ECF Veteran

    Oct 16, 2013
    USA
    I pretty much agree with you about speeding as well. dwi and school zone speeding is not okay though. to be honest the public vaping plight just does not interest me. therefore my stance on it. that is not to say it does not have it's merits. as I said, I am concerned with the continued sale of vaping hardware and fluids. that I will stand up to protect. hey, we all have different interests. I do not mean to shun anyone elses cause so long as it is moral. notice I did not say legal. I agree many laws are not in the best interest of the citizens. I would be annoyed to have others vaping around me in an indoor public area however. which I would never partake in. agreed, I might in the rest room but honestly to not take my vaporizers out. not even in my car. I feel I should focus on driving. also notice I said "I". what you do is up to you. I can't stop anyone nor intend to. I certainly would not join an anti vaping campaign. I will let the cards fall as they may in regard to public vaping. even though this topic is about a private party. it was still at a public venue. hence the drama that ensued. I am glad you are sane enough not to compare this cause to that of segregation or slavery. this argument may get heated at times but no one needs to compare this to any historic large scale oppression.
     
  19. nic_fix

    nic_fix Account closed on request ECF Veteran

    Oct 16, 2013
    USA
    ssm falls in with religion and race. those to me are just much bigger issues. plus they may offend some people but they do not ruin my meal with vapor. I understand how two men kissing could ruin someone eleses meal but that is their problem not the gay couple. lgbt harms no one. neither does race or religion. vaping is yet to be proven harmful but meanwhile a room full of it still stands to be nauseating. even to many vapers. I think private parties are fine. what happened here was an attempt by promoters to spit in the face of the law unbeknownst to the patrons attending as I understand. that was wrong of the promoters to use other individuals as pawns if that is actually what occurred. nonetheless I think people are confusing the levels of issues. to me at least, vaping in public is a minor one. I could care less. so there you are speaking to the wrong person. only time I care is if it impedes my sense of well being and I mean I cannot see at that point. confederate flags and swastikas will offend many people and are wrong in my view. that is something based on a deep rooted meaning. a ton of vapor in public is not as discourteous but still has it's implications. what the heck just say they find out this stuff is outright poison? we choose to do this. our problem. not others problem. suing tobacco companies is Ludacris. break the speed limit? go drive 260mph and try suing Ferrari. the judge will laugh if he is very nice. speaking of which people regularly do drive these super cars at 3 digit speeds. that is also wrong. 85mph in 70mph I get your point. however if you get pulled over just be abn adult and pay the fine. don't complain. it may be a law that is meant to be broken but if you get caught man/woman up. I am pretty darn liberal but I never try to offend anyone. that's just me. do as you please.
     
  20. crxess

    crxess Grumpy Ole Man Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Sep 20, 2012
    Williamsport Md
    And you are not? Do you hide or wait until getting home to vape every time you leave the house?

    I thought every vapor was representative.

    I Vape and I try to do so politely. I'm usually using my Ego/Carto rather than my .071 SX or an RDA when out and about.

    I have taken a quick Vape in a store, in a Restaurant and even in my Doctors office, but not in the face of or offensively toward others.

    Maybe it is my age, or more common respect than most seem to think exist, but I just have not had the issues pushy people seem to suffer.

    My point is I respect the privileges of others but have a hard time with laws written out contempt and through deceit.

    Most real, serious vapors are people trying to never go back to Tobacco and do not want the exposure any more than any ANTZ on the planet. Until someone respects that I have a right not to be hearded into a Smokers coral to do more damage to my system, I will show them no respect and defend my right to attempt to improve my health by whatever means works.

    Little to none of this has much to do with what went on in NJ and I was not there so cannot judge.
     
    • Like Like x 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice